Memorandum submitted by Barnsley Metropolitan
Borough Council
We are pleased to have the opportunity to respond
to the Committee enquiry into Regional Development Agencies and
have framed our responses in accordance to the questions set out
in the terms of reference to the enquiry.
Before setting out our detailed responses, we
should like to make the following general observation.
We see the role of the RDAs as becoming much
more strategic than they currently are. They should be high-level
outcome focused. Commissioning and devolving to partners to enable
them to get on with delivering the programmes that will raise
the overall economic prosperity of the region.
Q1. The need for a level of economic development/
business/ regeneration policy delivery between central and local
government
Yes, there is a need for strategic matters such
as spatial planning, major transport schemes and the like. We
do not see a role for the RDAs as delivery agents. This is more
the remit of local partners as this is where their expertise lies
as we have been delivering complex multi-funded programmes for
many years.
2. The effectiveness of RDAs and their role
in adding value
Assessing the effectiveness of RDAs is complicated
by the fact that their remit has evolved since they came into
operation. While performance of individual RDAs may be mixed,
the overall effectiveness will be judged against whether they
are able to close the gap with the more prosperous areas of the
country.
The RDAs can add value at a strategic level.
However, serious concerns exist about their capacity when compared
to local partners such as local authorities.
3. RDA expertise
The RDA level of expertise will have to increase
to take on new areas of activity including planning, housing and
community empowerment. Our response to the SNR consultation covered
this issue and it is worth repeating here what we said then concerning
the proposed role of the RDAs in the development of the new Integrated
Strategy:
"We would expect the RDAs to ensure they
have sufficient capacity to allow them to discharge their new
responsibilities. However, the sheer scale and complexity of what
is covered here should not be underestimated. By way of illustration
the reference to Environmental infrastructure—to mention
just one—includes flood control along with a host of other
elements".
Local authorities are well placed to deal with
these types of arrangements through their expertise built up over
many years and can provide valuable support and guidance to RDAs
while they are building up their level of knowledge and expertise.
We would not expect to be micro-managed in performing these and
other roles.
Q.4 The extent of, and need for, RDAs overseas
activities
We are not convinced there is much need for
independent permanent trade offices, which might be better within
UKTI and/or Northern Way. An alternative approach may be to have
trade missions to specific places at specific times for specific
purposes. Regional offices in Brussels are important to build
partnerships with other regions, to build reputation across Europe,
and to influence Commission thinking and policy. But some of their
work on policy analysis/identification of funding streams duplicates
what is already taking place and would be better merged with other
organisations functions such as for example the Local Government
Association.
Q.5 The consequences of expanding RDA remit
to include new functions, as proposed by the sub national review,
including the delivery of EU funding
The RDAs will have to ensure they have sufficient
capacity to manage their regional planning and community engagement
role. They will have to support the development of sub and city
region working.
There are some concerns about the dual role
as manager of the EU funds and recipient of them (or indirect
recipient as commissioner), leading to potential favouritism for
RDA proposed schemes. Key to the issue of the remit of the RDAs
therefore, will be the transparency in dealings between RDAs,
local authorities and other partners.
Q.6 The accountability of RDAs
Is clearly inadequate in light of the proposals
under SNR, especially around the remit to produce the Integrated
Single Regional Strategy, or for drawing up a "deprivation
map" (as per Transforming Places: Changing Lives Green
Paper). The composition of the RDA boards need to reflect the
additional responsibilities and hence accountabilities with perhaps
some measure of input/nomination from within the region (accepting
that Sec of State retains ultimate right to appoint).
SNR proposes a Leaders' Forum for scrutiny purposes
and we have said in our response to SNR that we would expect to
be consulted fully on any new scrutiny arrangements because of
our level of expertise in this area and that any system of scrutiny
should have real powers otherwise it would be seen to be tokenistic,
add little value and work against the principle of collaboration
which SNR is proposing.
Whatever arrangements are in place, they must
be capable of holding RDAs properly to account. In relation to
the Integrated Single Regional Strategy have a mechanism to ensure
that in the event of the Leader's Forum fundamentally disagreeing,
a delay can be built into the process till differences have been
resolved.
Q.7 How RDA performance has been measured
in the past and will be measured in future
Performance of RDAs should be against high level
and medium to long term outcomes. There should be full consultation
with those partners who will deliver against the targets and outcomes.
| 
